Can atheists "know" something without what they call proof?
Did they capture the moon? Yes, in this photograph.
Witness testimony and the law
There seems to be a disconnect somewhere for some reason that certain people cannot accept that another persons testimony is proof and evidence. For some odd reason that I am trying to find the answer to, some folks just insist that another person relating what they know is not evidence of what they know.
Yet for all human history we have relied on what others tell us. One need not have much of an imagination to visualize a "cave" man relating to another "cave" man where good water is or good food and so they both go there.
We can assume that schools of one sort or another have been around pretty much with the current model for ever in human history. Teacher and Student and the teacher teaches and the student learns from what the teacher says.
It is so old and so accepted that people's statements are evidence that only a crack pot, lab coat wearing test tube freak could deny it.
A smart man has to be completely aghast at these atheist that claim, extol and declare that a mans testimony is not evidence. They are living in la la land. I hope they never get accused of murder and need an eye witness alibi.
What a man testifies to is proof and evidence as to what he testifies to. Plain and simple.
Normal people rely upon what other normal people tell them. Some how there is a switch in the brain of an atheist that never gets switched on because they just cannot accept this plain and simple fact that one man and 3 men testifying create a truth. Something is abnormal about this.
What do you believe?
Do you know what is acceptable evidence?
Atheists do not accept eye witness testimony because they cannot sense it.
'a man said he saw God and felt him in his heart. Then four men said the same thing. And then one hundred saw and felt the same thing, , , , We understand their testimony.'
Yet to an atheist that is not evidence because it is evidence that they cannot sense themselves.
A policeman wrote down what he saw and got four signatures, to attest they saw the same thing. To an atheist this is not valid evidence.
A child cries and claims that her father hit her, but there is no evidence of the strike. An atheist declares no crime.
A woman claims she was raped but there is no physical evidence. So she is lying.
A man claims to be in love, yet the atheist demands proof.
Now if we meet an atheist that can accept testimony as proof and they just do not believe then we can understand him well. But when they just cannot accept testimony as proof then they are not capable of normal discussion.
12 jurors go into deliberations. Half believe the testimony of eye witnesses and 6 do not. That is OK. But if 2 of them just say "I cannot accept it as proof because it is just testimony", then under the common law of the west they are violating the instructions that the court has given them. That is just fact.
And there is something wrong with that person who cannot follow the instruction from thousands of years of jurisprudence.
Very inclusive work worthy of reading
Nothing is true unless proved to the satisfaction of people who have never studied rules of evidence?
Now this is sounding harsh.
Yes it is. Some will come and criticize me because I am critical of a mindset. That is fine. Others will criticize that my words are not loving and an example of what I preach which is that God is Love.
Well that is fine. I can take that heat. But because I profess love does not make me a door mat. And love does not only equate to nice. Many many Christians are attacked and called lazy intellectuals because they believe without physical proof. They are entitled to be assured that they do not need it.
The Bible is proof. Yes one must know that it is proof. Credibility is another issue. Matters like it's age and authorship are valid issues some cut against the credibility and others support it. For instance "ancient texts" get both support because they are ancient and yet they are harder to verify because of age. But for someone to forcefully assert that it is not evidence is just fallacious. Others cry that it is hearsay. Well if they understood what hearsay is they would know that there are no less than ten exceptions to what we call hearsay. For instance not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but simply to show someone wrote it down. Dying declarations and historical record keeping also have impact on credibility.
For instance the story of Bethlehem and the Virgin Mary can be viewed for the sole purpose of showing what some people of that day believed to be true. That is very valid evidence.
Soon I will not "write" here but only make money here.
The Natural order of things.
We are not looking at a publication here that wants to win a Pulitzer Prize. They would never risk that notion of safety in numbers and white bread journalism. That is a good idea. We must accept that to be serious writers we must have our own publication.
Some hub like this one laying bare the facts and really addressing a contentious issue is not the bally-wick here. And this is good. I have a foundation that can make money here and produce income. But I will not get recognized here because we are driven to conformity and sale ability.
That is a very good thing. Each writer needs a refuge and strict control in order to better their craft.
Back to the person who cannot believe.
It is not by accident that we use the word for truth of a persons testimony as "I believe that witness". It just is how we look at life. Someone who cannot believe what his mother or teacher teaches him is at a significant disadvantage in this world. We should set forth in our minds to help them, love them and embrace them.
My favorite dude in the new testament is a guy named Thomas. They call him doubting Thomas and I want that guy in my life. It is good.
To all you folk who doubt until you touch. I love you and I thank you much for keeping us hard at working testing our beliefs.